prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
I do not post this to appear to support or not support spiritual things that happen to various peoples of religion. I am impressed with people of faith. I have sat in sweat loges. I have fasted for 40 days in the wilderness as recommended by a Native American. I have been in places of worship of many faiths. I have heard their spiritual expressions. This is my opinion.
If a person is moved by a spiritual experience to love others (especially their enemies) and to be kind, and compassionate (again especially to their enemies), then I am impress and believe they are being influenced by the very spirit of Christ – weather they are Christian or not, I believe it is of Christ. But if they glory in themselves and think they are being lifted up to G-d (or something else) but do not show an increase of love towards others (especially to their enemies) – then I am convinced it is not the spirit of Christ.
For me it is not so much what happens in a moment but the commitment over the coming days, weeks, months and years to love and compassion. I find great joy in conversing with such and value their opinions, and think to myself that I would be more like them.
The Traveler
I was 14 and had just returned from Bible camp. My joyful report to my Sunday school teacher was, "I was filled with the Holy Ghost--I spoke in tongues!" Her response, "So, are you finding it easier to practice the FRUITS of the Holy Ghost?" (See Galations 5:22-23)
The "sign" of tongues is sort of like have your new car registration. It may be "proof," of ownership, but most people want to go for a ride! That would be the love, joy, peace, etc. :)
-
If you are praying in the Spirit, why would that Spirit not enlighten you as to what you are saying so as to be of some benefit?
The short answer is because he generally doesn't. God is sovereign. There is no model in the New Testament for believers who are PRAYING IN TONGUES privately to seek to interpret their own prayers. What needs interpreting on messages in tongues given to the church. In all five cases in the books of Acts, where believers are baptized in the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues, never is there an instance of someone interpreting or seeking an interpretation. Why? These are not instances where a MESSAGE in tongues is being offered.
Mormon practice speaking in tongues but not as a total central theme. Christ is our central theme and He is who we look to and praise, not men and what they can do to demonstrate their spirituality. The enlargement of the soul comes from the Spirit. Speaking gibberish, without understanding is not enlarging the Spirit.
1. Speaking in tongues is not the central theme of Pentecostals. It is a sensational distinctive, and so garners a lot of attention.
2. While Jesus may be an important theme in Mormonism, didn't President McConkie say that only the Heavenly Father is to be worshipped? Jesus is revered, but should not be worshipped.
3. The enlargement of the soul DOES come from the Spirit. Since the Spirit gives us the tongues, praying with them enlarges the Spirit.
Understanding and interpretation are the same thing. You seem to be very lost in your exclusive meanings of things.
Actually the words are different, and the meanings are different. See the references below. It's akin to the difference between translating and teaching.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...65616-4163.html
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...65750-7210.html
-
<div class='quotemain'>
...If you are praying in the Spirit and still don't know what you are saying~ you are possessed by the devils spirit. The Holy Ghost is a Spirit of enlightenment, not befuddlement of meaningless gibberish.
...is not good and cometh not of God, but cometh of the devil.
...I guarantee you, that if you don't even know or are not given to know what you are saying through the Spirit, you are being led by the devil.
My bigotometer just went off.
Me thinks you gots El Diablo on the brain. Lighten up - Prison Chaplain comes across as more spiritual than you.
Well, I'm doubly confused.
#1. Syble says that the D&C potentially counts as blessed the public operation of the gift of tongues accompanied by the gift of interpretation in non-LDS Pentecostal churches. I find that incredibly NOT BIGOTED. On the other hand, I'm wondering how this meshes with the teaching that those same non-LDS churches are apostate?#2. Syble says that tongues-speech must ALWAYS be accompanied by interpretation--even during private prayer. Otherwise, it is demonic. First, do Mormons practice speaking in tongues, and then offering interpretations? I wasn't aware that this was a practice in the LDS Church. Second, Scripture does not back up this interpretation. The biblical injunction is to "Pray in the Spirit and with understanding," not to "Pray in the Spirit, and then with interpretation." By praying in tongues, my spirit communicates directly with God. There is no hinderance, no filtering, no subconcious motives. When I pray with understanding (in English), I know what I am asking, and my faith is built as God brings his answers. Both prayers edify the believer.
-
If other churches were less concerned about fitting into society, and more concerned about how they will fit into heaven, this wouldn't be an issue.
Methinks there are some who are working like the devil to get into heaven. ;-)
I think what some LDS folk, and many other curious individuals are wondering is whether or not polygamy would be reinstated in the Mormon Church, should the practice be legalized in the United States. One LDS poster here suggested that the polygamy was not condemned as a practice by the Church, but merely suspended.
Since same-sex marriage has always been condemned by most churches, included the LDS, legalization would have little impact.
-
No you may not. Every statement here is bogus to the extreme. Hmmmm.
Okay, I'm willing to back up. Do you believe that when someone speaks in tongues and then there is an interpretation in English, during a Pentecostal service, that the Holy Spirit has just communicated (at least in most cases)? If you do, and you grant us the benefit of the doubt, I apologize. I assumed that a reasonable extension of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel, is that non-LDS churches would not likely be able to truly operate in the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Second, your hasty and rather harsh conclusion is hardly supported by Scripture, or the experience of the church.
You are the one being harsh. Look to yourself.
Did you not say that when I pray in tongues, and there is no interpretation, that my prayers are 'of the devil?' Am I unreasonable to say your assessment is hasty and harsh? I testify to you that my 'prayers in the Spirit' are from the Holy Spirit.
Where did I state anything about my belief about penecostals?
You said that if there is tongues without interpretation, that it is of the devil. Pentecostals 'pray in the Spirit,' which by its nature (since it's private) does not include interpretation. So, am I wrong in concluding that you believe Pentecostals are praying 'of the devil?'
Furthermore, LDS doctrine is that non-LDS Christians are apostate. Am I wrong to assume that Mormons would be skeptical of apostates truly operating in the gifts of the Holy Ghost?
I make one statement, not harsh nor disingenuous: There is no righteous purpose in speaking tongues when no one understands what is being said.
Well, I do this. So, if you are saying that what I am doing has no righteous purpose, then to me you seem harsh. There is a righteous purpose in it, because this is of God. If you read any of the sources I offered, or my explanation even, you would have at least understood the difference between the public gift of tongues for the church, and the private practice of praying in tongues. You might disagree, which is fine. But, you've gone further and declared what I do to be unrighteous.
All things which cometh of God are good. Someon speaking giberish (which unintelible speach is)
I take strong exception to you labeling praying in tongues as gibberish. Gibberish is when we speak nonsense of our own effort--not of the Spirit. Tongues-speech is intelligible by the Holy Ghost.
is not good and cometh not of God, but cometh of the devil.
I would simply argue that you speak of that which you knoweth not. I would not take it upon myself to comment on Mormon Temple rituals and activities, because, despite what second-hand sources I might be able to read, I have not been there, and do not know for myself about them. Likewise, praying in the Spirit is a sacred practice for Pentecostals. To borrow and LDS phrase, the speech is not secret, but sacred. When it is public, there is an interpretation. However, when it is prayer and private, such interpretation is not necessary. My spirit is communicating directly with the Father, through the Holy Ghost.
I lived in South Korea for two years a while back and visited some of the Korean buddhist temples, too. I have also been to various other religious services over the years. Being a "glass half-full" kind of guy, I have rarely felt anything negative (demonic) anywhere I have been. I generally sense the faith and/or positive spiritual energy surrounding the fraction of truth that is present in all of these places or with those people.
Off topic: Were you just visiting Korea or did you live there for a while?
It would be too strong to say that I sensed demonic influences from the temples. It was more that it was simply not of God. My fear about Buddhism is that it could distract practioners from the simple pursuit of the one true and living God, in favor of inner peace and mental development.
I was a campus missionary in Korea for six years, working primarily in Taejon.
-
As a teenager, I attended a meeting at my girlfriends' church. In the middle of the meeting, I beheld people getting up from their seats, standing in the aisles, writhing and moaning something unintelligible. A feeling of doom swept over me, and I got this horrific pain in my head. All I could think of was to get out. Right after I left, the darkness disappeared and my headache vanished.
In the Bible, we are taught: "By their fruit ye shall know them." I believe those people were demon-possessed, and the spirit gave me a very clear warning to flee.
- Mrs. A
There are two possible reasons why you felt the way you did. 1. You were right. These people were demon-possessed, and the Holy Spirit was warning you. 2. You were predisposed to be skeptical of religious practices outside your own. That mixed with fear of the unknown could easily make you frightened.
How many non-LDS people do you suppose have visited SLC, walked the Temple grounds and felt "doom sweep over them, horrific pain in their head, and the need to flee?"--particularly if they had a strong religious upbringing of their own.
Quite frankly, I had those same feelings when I visited Buddhist Temples in Korea.
So, when you say, "By their fruits ye shall know them," what are the fruits of Pentecostalism?
1. Many have actually been delivered from demons.
2. Many have been delivered from drug addiction, through programs like Teen Challenge.
3. Many have received physical healings.
4. Many have reported a dramatic power that's been added to their spiritual practice.
One incident, in particular strikes me. During an "altar service" (a time around the front, where people are praying, seeking God, being prayed for, etc.) a woman was laughing quite loudly. One of the older elders went to the pastor and began to complain about it. The pastor immediately told him to shush--and explained that this woman had been through incredible trauma in her life, and had never once laughed! The Holy Spirit had replaced her sorrow with joy!
If you did not know her story, and you were used to quiet "respectful, reverent" services, you might think Satan was at work. In fact, it was God.
-
If praying and you speak in tongues, then there is an interpretor; the Holy Spirit. If there is no understanding of what you are saying, it is of the devil.
First, if I may, your response is somewhat disingenuous, in that I doubt that you believe that even when there is an interpretation in a Pentecostal service, that the gifts are truly of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I understand that Mormons believe Pentecostals are counted amongst the apostate.
Second, your hasty and rather harsh conclusion is hardly supported by Scripture, or the experience of the church.
Does an interpretation always have to accompany tongues-speech.
The short answer is NO. There are two types of tongues speech. 1.
Praying in tongues. In 1 Corinthians 14:15 Paul contrasts PRAYING in
the Spirit with praying with understanding. Prayer is usually private,
and so would require no interpretation. My spirit communes with God.
However, so that my faith is built up (especially when God answers
prayer), I must also pray with understanding. 2. The gift of tongues,
or speaking publically in tongues. Here, there is a message from the
Spirit for the congregation, so an interpretation is necessary.
This first link describes in a generally the contrast between these
types of tongues-speech, from the point of view of the General Council
of the Assemblies of God, considered the largest of the classic
Pentecostal fellowships in the United States.
http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_in_the_h...ivatepublic.cfm
This link describes the role of interpretation of tongues, again
from the Assemblies of God perspective.
http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_in_the_h...erpretation.cfm
This last link offers a little more depth on the topic of praying in
tongues.
-
sorry, I didn't mean to sound hostile and I really am not.
No problem. Quite often the person we're about to talk to gets our left over feelings from our last similar conversation.
Thanks but no thanks on How Wide the Divide. I have read it and I am not a fan of Robinson. I think Robinson is WAY of base as a Mormon on alot of things.
How so? As an outsider, I thought I learned a lot from the book. Blomberg (the evangelical) might not have pleased all evangelicals, but he represented mainstream thinking quite well. What were some of the key difficulties you had with Robinson?
-
The question to ask is "IS IT EDIFYING?"
IF THE ONE SPEAKING IN TONGUES IS SAYING SOMETHING OF SPIRITUAL VALUE WHICH WOULD EDIFY, AND THAT THERE IS SOMEONE TRANSLATING THE NEEDED MESSAGE. OTHERWISE I WOULD PLACE IT IN THE TEXT AS CORRUPT COMMUNICATION.
If so, I feel vindicated. If I speak out in tongues in the congregation, and there is an interpretation, then you have said the message is "needed" or edifying. And, the Scripture verses you cited concur.
But, what if I speak in tongues during private prayer? Is that edifying? What if there is no interpretator?
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God ... He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself. 1 Corinthians 14:2a, 4a.
To summarize how it works in churches that embrace these gifts as being "for today":
1. If a member speaks out in an unknown tongue, the congregation becomes quiet. Afterwards, an interpretation in the venacular of the congregation (i.e., English for most of us) will be spoken. The message is considered to be from God, and to be a specific word for the local congregation. The word given is interpreted in light of Scripture, and may be deemed "not of God," or "of the flesh," of a contradiction is apparent.
2. A member may simply speak out in the venacular of the congregation. This is considered a prophetic word, and is received the same as an interpretation of tongues.
3. If the church is worshiping, or if an individual is involved in personal prayer, s/he may sometimes "pray in the Spirit," meaning to pray in tongues. We believe this is direct communication between our spirits and God. No interpretation is necessary, which is why we should both pray in the Spirit and with understanding.
When missionaries learn a new language in the mission home, isn't that a form of "speaking in tongues"? Many must learn a foreign language in such a relatively short time, that I believe the missionaries are truly blessed with the ability to learn these languages so quickly.
God certainly can grant the recipient of the gift of tongues a human language. However, only in the Acts 2:4 account was this the norm. In the other four incidences, the speech did not appear to be human.
Nevertheless, God certainly also grants his servants various gifts--including language apprehension. I met an American pastor in Hong Kong, who had mastered Cantonese (a Chinese dialect) within one year, and without formal training. He then went on to learn Mandarin so well that he was teaching local Hong Kong people to speak in Mandarin.
I do not think that a gifting to learn a foreign language quickly is quite the same as the gift of tongues in Acts and Corinthians. Nevertheless, it is an extremely practical blessing, that I am certain missionaries are grateful for!
-
For about two years, ever since legalized same-sex marriages became a real possiblity in the U.S., I've predicted that polygamy would be next. The marriage arrangement has historic precedent, and there are some religious traditions that condone it.
Sure 'nuf: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/01/1...08011306_02.txt
Potential problems:
1. Immigration. If "paper marriages" (entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining a green card) will become even more prolific.
2. Abuse. Just as two male roommates entered into a marriage in Canada, solely for the economic benefits (taxes and social welfare programs), so I can picture some groups setting up communal relationships that are other than about something other than simply setting up a large family.
3. Destruction of civil marriage. Eventually the convulated relationships will become so absurd, that government will get out of the marriage business all together, and simply arbitrate civil unions.
An interesting verse from the prophet Isaiah:
And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by they name, to take away our reproach. Isaiah 4:1 KJV
-
What I would like to know is there any real and testable evidence whatsoever that speaking in tongues is anything other than gibberish?
No, not from a linguistic-anthropological standpoint. Like many matters relating to communications from or through the Holy Spirit, faith is a huge component. This probably fits under the same category as the reception of "testimonies," or confirmations from the Holy Spirit. When people say, "I sensed God directing me to do such and such." Was it really God? How do you prove it? Well, I just know. I might have gone to some mature believers and sought their input. I might have consulted Scriptures. But, ultimately, by faith I knew that what I had sensed was from God.
Did I really speak strange sounds because the Holy Spirit took control of my tongue, or did a combination of desire, excitement, and perhaps comaradarie lead me to begin speaking unintelligibly, on my own? I'm convinced it was from God, but there is no way to rationally verify it for you.
As for the speaking in tongues and sexual misconduct... It's just something I heard and googleing "speaking in tongues sexual misconduct" gives over 100,000 hits.
So many people come up with so many notions that seem logical. Certain people repeat the idea with authority or charisma. Next thing you know, people are hearing that such and such is true. It hits the internet, is sensational, and you have a new urban legend.
Of course, some might label the above as trafficing in rumors.
On the other matter... sexual misconduct by volunteers is hardly the same issue as misconduct by clergy.
Perhaps. However, like many public stories and rumors, this stuff gets conflated. Church sex scandal...clergy scandal...you know how emotional those pentecostals are...i'll bet they mess around a lot...come to think of it I think I read something on the internet about that...
I was just pointing out that many of the "church sex scandal" headlines you see are likely to involve volunteers, not clergy, and that many even involve children molesting children. Abuse and failure happen, no doubt. But I seriously doubt that one's theology concerning tongues has any correlation to the rates in various fellowships.
-
I further suspect that churches that engage in such nonsense have a higher degree of sexual misconduct amoung their leadership/clergy.
I did a quick google search, and it turns out the main culprits in "church sexual misconduct" cases are not Pentecostal/Charismatic clergy (nor Catholic priest, btw), but church volunteers. Also, children are often the perpetrators.
See: http://csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
The good news is that religious organizations are grappling with the problem, and the rates seem to be falling.
-
I'd be way so more impressed if someone who verifiably did not speak Flemish, started speaking, verifiably, in Flemish, instead of the complete gibberish that is typically spoken.
Yeah, but that's not the point. The purpose of tongues was not designed by God to convert nonpentecostal religionists, Christian or otherwise. I've become aware that many believe that the tongues spoken in the New Testament was alway human foreign languages, and there are some strong indicators that it just wasn't so.
I further suspect that churches that engage in such nonsense have a higher degree of sexual misconduct amoung their leadership/clergy.
That's an interesting little bomb to toss out.
I'm not sure where it comes from, and I'm fairly certain there is no documentation to verify the hypothesis. Aside from Christians, certain religious groups also have been observed to practice some form of glossolalia. Glossolalia is evident in the renowned ancient Oracle of Delphi, whereby a priestess of the god Apollo (called a sibyl) speaks in strange utterances, supposedly through the spirit of Apollo in her, but possibly related to high levels of natural gas present in spring waters beneath the temple. Glossolalia has also been observed in shamanism and the Voodoo religion of Haiti; it can often be brought on by the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs or entheogens such as Psilocybe mushrooms. Skeptics dismiss these cases as simply being in a state of trance, self-hypnotism or religious ecstasy.
Nobody counterfeits $3 bills, 'cause the real thing doesn't exist. Might it just be that Satan has inspired counterfeits of something God has chosen to use "to confound the wise?"
-
Of course I don't think all evangelicals are anti-mormons and I never even used that phrase.
No, of course you didn't. You used the phrase "so-called Christians." When asked to clarify, you said you meant it, and explained some encounters you had with people that most here would have defined as anti-Mormons. Most Christians, evangelical or not, would find the phrase "so-called Christian" even more abrasive than anti-Mormon.
Almost every one (evangelical) I have met has been a very nice person and we share alot of the same beliefs and standards. However, I have met and talked with ALOT of evangelicals and I would say that.....oh......about 99% of them believe that mormons aren't christians, that it is blasphemy to "add" to the "perfect" bible and that the mormon church is a "cult".
Yes, evangelicals do believe that the canon is basically closed, and that if modern day prophets should arise, their words would be judged according to Scripture, rather than Scripture being enlightened by the revelations.
As for the word "cult," evangelicals use it to describe religious systems that use Christian nomenclature, but who have a theology that is quite outside the mainstream. From the perspective of the evangelical, that would not be a good thing. However, I believe a Mormon would respond, "Amen--because we've RESTORED the truth."
These ideas need not hinder conversation, nor be discussed with animosity. We're all God-seekers, and we most of us here seek to serve the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
Those ideas come from teachings that are actively taught in many churches, both protestant and evangelical. I had a stack of literature on my mission that talked specifically and negatively about mormons from many different churches that we used for comic relief from time to time. I guess, yeah, sometimes I do paint with a semi-broad brush but it is based on many personal experiences.
As a shameless plug, you might want to stop by the Bookreview section of this site, to see my post concerning the book, "How Wide the Divide?" It's co-authored by to professors of religion, Robinson (BYU, Ancient Scriptures) and Blomberg (Denver Seminary). They have set forth an excellent model of how Mormon/Evangelical conversations should take place, and come to some interesting conclusions.
Peace and love!
-
Ray and I had an interesting dialogue going about LDS essentials, and the testimony that the Holy Ghost gives came up, as well as talk about Holy Ghost anointing. Inevitably (that is if you have such a discussion with a Pentecostal minister, it's inevitable) the issue of tongues came up. I thought it might prove interesting to some, so I offer my take as a new string. Also, check the link for a charismatic Catholic's take on the issue.
Pentecostals contend that the gift of speaking in tongues need not be a human language. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14, it probably was not. Otherwise, why have the gift of interpretation? If the primary purpose of the gift of tongues is to communicate a gospel message in a foreign tongue, as some suggest, then the receiver would not need an interpreter. Tongues-speech itself was not understood by the church. Paul also said that speaking in tongues edifies the individual, but it's the interpretation that edifies the church. Thus, the context was that the tongues-speech was an unknown language.
For a more in depth explanation—one offered by a charismatic Catholic, if I’m not mistaken, see the following link:
-
I have never said that people in other churches are not Christians, or that other people do not worship Jesus Christ. I have simply said that not everybody who is a Christian, or who believes in Jesus Christ, has received authority from Him or from His duly authorized servants. You still seem to be having trouble making the distinction between having beliefs and having authority, with the understanding that no matter how much you know, you still may not have authority.
Okay, I'll rephrase. Let's see if I can capture the nuance better. Non-LDS Christians may be Christians, they may worship Jesus, but they have no authority to be missionaries, apostles, prophets, bishops, or to represent Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world. Only those duly authorized in the one true restored Christian Church (LDS) have authority from Jesus Christ. Have I understood you?
I have been trying to approach you as someone who does not see something I see, while trying to help you see it, in a “proper and affectionate manner”. ... I simply know that I can see some things that you can’t see, and I am trying to help you see them.
So, are you trying to help those like me move from the Terrestial to the Celestial kingdom? Perhaps from glory to GLORY? If so, perhaps you are closer to Robinson's view than I have intimated.
I did not say that Pentecostals speak gibberish. I was saying that the gift of speaking in tongues results in people who can speak in other tongues, not people who can speak in gibberish.
I'll just explain the Pentecostal position, and leave to you as FYI. We believe that the gift of speaking in tongues need not be a human language. In fact, in the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14, it probably was not. Otherwise, why the need for a gift of interpretation? If the primary purpose of the gift of tongues was to communicate a gospel message in a foreign tongue, then the receiver would not need an interpreter. It's pretty clear that the tongues-speech was not understood by the church. Paul also said that tongues edifies the individual, but it's the interpetation that edifies the church. Thus, the context was that the tongues-speech was an unknown language.
Ray, you've worked hard on this string, and I appreciate your comments, your insights, and the exchange. God bless you...until next time!
-
But do you believe he was forgiven after each episode, or did it took place when he no longer did the act?
Heavenly father is very very specific on repentance & foriveness....including when they keep returning to the act, I truly dont believe there repentance is real, until they quit the act and gain a mighty change of heart and do not committ what ever acts they were doing again.
1. In this case, I believe he was forgiven each time. My sense is that it was an addiction of some type. He really wanted to quit. He was torn up with each failure. But, he did not give up on God, and God did not give up on him.
2. The case in which forgiveness was not extended by the church involved blatant disobedience. In 1 Corinthians 5 there was a man having an affair with his stepmother. The Church thought he demonstrated God's grace and mercy. Paul said, NO! He was unrepentent. He was not attempting to break away from the immoral relationship. Pauls said they were to put him OUT of the church--turn him over to Satan. Then, perhaps he would come to his senses, and yet be forgiven. In 2 Corinthians there is a passage where Paul tells the church that the repentent brother has been punished enough. Forgive him, and stop rehashing it! While we cannot be certain, many scholars believe this is the same one. If so, what a tremendous story of God's mercy and forgiveness--AFTER true repentence.
3. If someone has molested someone, or cheated, forgiveness does not mean complete trust or restoration. In the case of molestation, "forgetting the sin" does not mean placing a stumbling block (temptation) before the weak brother/sister. Also, when marriage vows are breaking, the "one flesh" relationship has been ripped apart, and an interloper has been thrown into the equation. The result is so tramautic, that though Jesus says, "God hates divorce," this is the one case (other than abandonment) where divorce is permitted. Again "forgetting the sin" does not always mean status quo ante (returning to how it was before).
-
EXTREME EDIT ALERT! I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO BRING OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC DIALOGUE BACK DOWN TO BOOK LENGTH WITH THIS RESPONSE.
Prisonchaplain says: 1. Prophets: Many churches, especially African-American ones, do have those called prophets and apostles.
Ray, now
I was using the word “prophet” to refer to people who receive personal communication from Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.... I was using the word “apostle” as a reference to people sent by our Lord with His authority, not as a reference to people sent by other people who have not been authorized by Him. ... Or in other words, when leaders of the Church ordain people to serve as missionaries, the people who serve as missionaries
So, bottom-line: If they ain't Mormon they ain't prophets, apostles, missionaries, or overseers (bishops)? So, here's a question: Why do Mormons get consternated when Christians, who believe (rightly or not) that Joseph Smith was a false prophet--and that the whole set of Mormon distinctives is at least wrong--question whether or not the LDS Church is Christian? If I read you right, Ray, Mormons believe they not only are Christian, but ultimately, that all other churches are not.
Here's how it sounds:
1. Hey, you can't say we're not Christians. Us too--we belong!
2. By the way, you are not Christians. You don't belong.
I believe that Professors Robinson and Blomberg have overcome this disconnect in their discussion, "How Wide the Divide?" Part of that overcoming includes an ability for both sides to see the other as, perhaps wrong, but sincerely seeking after God and the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament.
I suggest that you study Paul’s letter to the Ephesians to see how he used that word.
I did as you suggested. I saw two uses of the word prophet(s). It often refers to the Old Testament prophets. It can also refer to prophets in the church. My thought, since none is ever specifically mentioned--and certainly no New Testament prophet took leadership of the church, is that the New Testament prophet was one who exercised the gift of prophecy. As such, they were prophets--but not in the Old Testament sense of one great man of God standing up to the king and to the people at large and calling for repentence and righteousness. Rather, these prophets exercised their gifts to build up the local congregation. So, in some Pentecostal churches those who prophesy are called prophets, in most anglo Pentecostal churches were use the more cautious phrase, "S/he has the gift of prophecy." BTW, none of what I am saying is meant to argue against the possibility that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
I would say that “apostasy” is to reject something after knowing it is true, while “rebellion” is to fight against knowing whether or not something is true.
Perhaps the safe approach would be to say the judging is in God's hands, and that all those who seek God should seek for the fullest understanding possible. prisonchaplain, Jan 12 2006, 07:15 PM
So, where are we at? Are we all God-seekers, all attempting to follow the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Is it just that one side is wrong on some things, as Prof. Robinson says, and in need of "additional truth." Or is one side non-Christian, an enemy of the true gospel, and in need of total repentence and conversion?
I think that is a personal question that each of us has to answer for ourselves, with the help of personal revelation from Jesus Christ. And although those of us who know the truth can also know that other people don’t know it, we cannot judge their hearts or determine why they have not learned the truth, unless our Lord reveals that to us too.
There is an issue you have to grapple with, though, Ray. It's one I've been working out as well--both here--and through the "How Wide the Divide?" book. How do I approach an Latter Day Saint? How do you approach a non-LDS individual who claims to be Christian? Are we spiritual brothers? Am I "a weaker brother." Am I, like Apollos, "In need of more truth." Or, as an educated believer who claims to commune with the Holy Spirit, am I intentionally rebellious, and perhaps even apostate--perhaps even a Son of Perdition? How optimistically will you approach me, and I you?
Quite frankly, even ten years ago, I was probably an anti-Mormon, at least in my attitude. But ten years of ministry in which I engage with Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, Catholics, and varying degrees of "no preference," have given me pause. I've decided to listen more and speak less (quite snickering Laureltree!). As it stands today, I'm still convinced of the basics of evangelicalism, and the 16 fundamental truths of my own movement (yes, it's more or less a creed). I do not have a testimony concerning Joseph Smith. But I stay, I listen, I share what I know, and I am optimistic that since nearly all who come this way are on some level seeking God. So, this is time well spent.
I do not believe it is true to state that everyone who receives that particular gift of the Holy Ghost which enables someone to speak in other tongues is the only sign someone can receive to let them know they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I know you don't. I do. This is a distinctive teaching of Pentecostal churches. It won't get you in or keep you out of heaven. But, again, I'd point out that in the five incidences of people receiving the baptism in the Holy Ghost, tongues is specified in three of them, implied in one, and simply not pointed out in the fifth. It is the most consistent outward element that's repeated. Additionally, in one particular incident, where there was skepticism, the apostles point to tongues as proof that Gentiles had indeed been baptized in the Holy Ghost.
Furthermore, your idea that God inspires others to relinquish control of their tongue is not in harmony with what I believe about what our Lord has revealed about why that gift is given. And to put it simply, I believe the gift of being able to speak in other tongues is given so that we can communicate with others in their own tongue, not so we can speak jibberish and then have someone tell us what that jibberish supposedly means.
Only in Acts 2 do the tongues seem to be intelligible. None of the other incidences were like that. Also, in none of the five incidences were the apostles in a cross-lingual setting. The gift of tongues was never used as a way of speeding up the missionary task of learning a new language.
Also, I know you do not believe Pentecostals speak under the anointing of the Holy Ghost, but you should know that most Pentecostals, especially if they don't know you, would take offense at having something we consider sacred, reduced to nonsense language. Ironically, if we are right about what we do, you commit the same error the crowd did--thinking us drunk (babble, jibberish).
I will never abandon anyone I love, no matter what they choose to believe, and I will continue to love them and try to help them to see what I see that they do not see.
Amen.
-
OMG I think it's a marathon in here, who's running the mile ?
Okay Administrator Laureltree (note the extreme respect and the deep bow I offered as I make my inquiry), it's time to let us know if you realize how long these last few posts really were. Can you summarize what Ray and I are talking about in 50 words or less?
-
Introduce yourselves!!!
I'm in shock
I really thought I had done this. I started from page six and went backwards to the #1, and I'm not here. I'd like to think old-age has something to do with this lapse, but as my cousin pointed out, "No...you're too young for that excuse. It's just a lack of concentration."So, first--since this is a religious discussion site, primarily, I am and ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, which is a Pentecostal/evangelical Christian fellowship. I am a convert, in that I began going to church at the age of 10, after some workers from the local church came around our neighborhood with candy and balloons, and invited us to come so Sunday School--where we would get more candy and balloons. Within about three weeks, in November 1974, in response to the teachers explaining that Jesus died for our sins, and if we would ask, God would forgive us and help us to live godly lives, I raised my hand, prayed the 'sinners' prayer,' and became born again. Although my brother went to, he never embraced the gospel. I did. Three years later, at a summer Bible camp, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit, and yes, I spoke in tongues (still do). One testimony that sticks with me to this day, is that I got through my teenage years without drugs, alcohol, sex, or even "back masked" Satanic rock & roll.
After high school I went to Whitworth College (Spokane, WA), majored in history/political studies and elementary education. During my senior year I went on exchange to South Korea, and fell in love with the place and the people. So, after graduation I took a position as a 5/6th grade teacher at an American-based Christian school. As I was settling in, a Korean campus missionary asked me to start teaching English Bible studies in my home. I did. I started with six students, and within three weeks was up to twenty. Three years later, we had about 150 students a week attending meetings on five campuses, and I had three other native English speakers working with me. God gave me a revelation! He said, "Look around you. See what is happening. You are no longer a volunteer. I'm calling you as a missionary!" Soon afterward, I contacted an evangelical tentmakers mission (they provide organization, support, and supervision for missionaries who use secular jobs as their entry into ministries). Three years later I received another revelation. I was to apply for seminary (graduate theological study). Mind you, this was nowhere on my radar screen. I was considering a degree in Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language, but not theological studies!
About this time my Korean roommate introduced me to his sister, so I could help her prepare for a job interview--teaching English. Well, ah...you know...uh--yeah, it happened.
We started dating, and then the time came for me to come back to America. Half way through my studies at seminary, the call came, "Go home for Spring Break--my parents are coming to meet your parents." We were married in the church I grew up in! About this time, I receive a third revelation from the Lord. Check into prison chaplaincy. What?! Where'd that come from? I'm used to working with Asian university students. Why would I do that? Just check into it, the Lord says. Sometimes the Lord is also "Innocent as a lamb, wise as a serpent."Fast forward about ten years, we know have three lovely girls, 5, 3, and 1. I've been a chaplain for 8 years, and love the work. We're blessed that my wife is able to stay home with the girls. Also, in the last two years my mother and brother both came to faith in Jesus. Patience and God's faithfulness--a wonderful combination.
So, why am I here? It all started with a school board race in Federal Way, WA about six months ago. Our region of the country is extremely non-religious. Less than 5% attend any type of organized religious meetings on a regular basis. Yet, two of our school board members were Mormon. When a board member suddenly resigned, a third Mormon was appointed. Then, three months later, when he had to run in an election, the opponents all accused the board of appointing him because of his church affiliation. As an evangelical in a non-religious city, that got my dander up! I thought, "This time it's the Mormons, next time it'll be us evangelicals." So, I wrote a letter to the editor, supporting the Mormon on the basis that, as a man of faith, he'll be far more sympathetic to any religious conflicts my children might encounter than would an opponent who would use religion as a disqualifier (She claimed a third Mormon would mean a "lack of diversity--a narrowness of view." Well, I'm a tangental thinker. So, this got me to thinking that, as a chaplain, I probably should know more about Mormonism than what some anti-cult writers had written about twenty years ago. So, I did a simple google search, and the rest is history.
I've learned much in my three months here, and look forward to "many happy returns." God bless you all.
By the way, as a shameless plug: If you want to see a conversation by a Mormon and an evangelical professor done intelligently, check out my bookreview of "How Wide the Divide," in the book review section (I should have just posted in the the general section--me thinks the book review subsection is something of a ghetto
).Blessings to you all--and thanks for the warm welcome, and the liberty that reigns here.
-
Prisonchaplain said: Perhaps I"m biased.
I vote for Professor Robinson's optimism. Comment on my own comment: I didn't actually vote--I honored my own "lds only" rule.
"So-called Christian?"
OUCH yes, so-called Christian. I don't think it is very Christian of churches to bad talk and put out lying propaganda and actively teach in their churches that a certain religion isn't Christian because it doesn't fit their personal definition of "Christian". I don't think Christ himself would do something like that.
Now, I know you're fairly new in these parts (imagine a truly hideous phony southern, small-town sherriff-like accent), but we had a different string here on what defines an "anti-Mormon." It was a very small minority indeed that argued that all non-LDS are anti-Mormons. So, I'm curious. Do you? Do you believe that all evangelicals are anti-Mormons?
Or, perhaps you're simply painting with a broad brush? -
I'll tell you one thing I like about Pat. He did NOT name his school after himself. Furthermore, he changed the name, so it did would not be directly associated with the 700 Club or the network. So, some day, should I have a few years available for fulltime study and about $30K to spare (very reasonable by today's tuition standards), I can earn a legitimate PH.D., and not have to worry about Robertson's or CBN's reputation at the time (Pitty the students that went to the Jimmy Swaggart Bible College back in the 1980s).
Poor Pat. He says a lot of smart stuff. Then, every once in awhile he comes up with some real foolishness. He needs to empower his handlers and his public relations people to muzzle him from time to time.
-
I was one of the few that apparently said "No". ... I believe the millenium will be spent doing work for those millions or billions who lived on the earth when the gospel was not on it or who lived in areas of the earth without access to the restored gospel not for stubborn evangelicals who rejected the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel because they believed the propaganda put out by other so-called "Christian" religions regarding the LDS church.
Perhaps I"m biased.
I vote for Professor Robinson's optimism. "So-called Christian?"
OUCH -
The Savior said we are required to forgive everyone, that he will forgive whom he will forgive. Now, my question is, if we repent, truly ask for forgiveness in the way that we should, personally if possible, and then return to the very same activity that we needed to repent of, does that mean that we are repentent? Or is it a ruse to gain the sympathy of others?
I knew a fellow who, as a Christian, committed the same sin every day for 15 years. And, every night he repented, in sincerity--asking God to grant him the strength to overcome his addiction. After 15 years God set him free. Today, he's a leader in his church--a man with a powerful testimony of God's incredible patience and mercy. The man loves God deeply, because he knows that God has deeply forgiven him.
To repent means to change. If we claim we are repentent, but do not change, then we have not repented. I am more concerned with those whom we forgive who continue on with the same offensive behaviors. It would seem that they are excused for a time, but never fully acknowledge how their behaviors affect others, so they return to the same offensive, self-defeating behaviors which keep them stuck. Not only do they remain stuck, but they affect the progress of those whom they offend, especially if the ones whom they offend go inactive. We may forgive those whom have offended us, but if the offense is of a very serious nature, it will not be forgotten...and for our own protection, it is best unforgotten.
Forgiveness and trust are two different matters. For a most painful example, if a spouse cheats, the innocent one must eventually forgive. However, s/he also may seek a divorce. Trust is broken. Reconciliation is beautiful, but not always possible in such cases.
I am not sure about this. Let's say someone commits fornication when they are 18, repent, get married, stay away from compromising situations, then their husband dies when she is 55. In a state of lonliness a guy she is good friends with and her have sex. Can you say she is an unrepentant individual because she has fornicated twice (and she had a lustful heart in reality for 3 decades)?
I'd say she needs to repent. Can she be forgiven? Of course. Remember that 70X7 line Jesus came up with?
Perhaps the safe approach would be to say the judging is in God's hands, and that all those who seek God should seek for the fullest understanding possible. 
OMG I think it's a marathon in here, who's running the mile ? 
I really thought I had done this. I started from page six and went backwards to the #1, and I'm not here. I'd like to think old-age has something to do with this lapse, but as my cousin pointed out, "No...you're too young for that excuse. It's just a lack of concentration."
We started dating, and then the time came for me to come back to America. Half way through my studies at seminary, the call came, "Go home for Spring Break--my parents are coming to meet your parents." We were married in the church I grew up in! About this time, I receive a third revelation from the Lord. Check into prison chaplaincy. What?! Where'd that come from? I'm used to working with Asian university students. Why would I do that? Just check into it, the Lord says. Sometimes the Lord is also "Innocent as a lamb, wise as a serpent."
Or, perhaps you're simply painting with a broad brush? 
Is Tongues-speech A Human Foreign Language?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
And your Scripture reference for that claim?
Haven't you ever burst into tears because you didn't even know what to say? Oh well...you're just blubbering now--nothing intelligible. Crying must not be from the heart.
There's plenty of Bible to show that praying in tongues is from the Holy Ghost. Your intuitive rules can't trump the clear examples from the Word of God.
Again, the Scripture verse that says if something is sensational it's not of the Savior? BTW, your partially right. It's not from the Savior--it's from the Holy Ghost.
So you do worship Jesus? Not just revere, but worship? Perhaps I was wrong. I thought McConkie had said that only the Heavenly Father received worship.
Where do you get these rules you keep saying? I've given you Scripturual accounts to show you that translation is not required for private prayer.
I have to stick with the Bible over this rule you keep saying as though it were Scripture.